Should the response to the comments from the reviewers include the "points in favor" and "points detracting" sections from the email, or just address the suggestions in the attached PDF?

(0) 讚！ | ACve1

Should the response to this review include the Reviewer (Points In Favor) and Reviewer (Points Detracting) sections in the email, or just reply to the suggestions in the PDF attachment?

(0) 讚！ | ACve1

It is indeed necessary to have agreement from all authors before submission. The corresponding author can see which authors have not yet confirmed in the system

(0) 讚！ | Voyager X

I also want to ask this question

(0) 讚！ | 小孙aaa

I would like to ask the senior authors who have submitted manuscripts, do all authors need to agree before the manuscript is reviewed?

(0) 讚！ | 小孙aaa

Is there any change?

(0) 讚！ | ACve1

Do all authors really have to accept to review?

(1) 讚！ | ACve1

Hi, how long has it been since there has been a change in status?

(0) 讚！ | yyyd

It has been 22 days and it is still under consideration

(0) 讚！ | 三三sansan

It's been a week since I applied, but I haven't heard anything yet. Have you received any results?

(0) 讚！ | 白小羊

Manuscript Accepted 2023-11-13
Decision Made 2023-11-13
Decision Pending 2023-11-12
Manuscript Decision Made 2023-11-12
Decision Made 2023-11-12
Under Review 2023-10-23
Under Consideration 2023-10-18
Submission 2023-10-18
Major revise 2023-10-10
Under Review 2023-9-19
Under Consideration 2023-8-22
Submission 2023-8-22
Two reviewers, over 20 comments, feedback feels like it's from peer experts, very detailed and professional. In addition, high requirements for references and language.
Accepted after two and a half months, happy!

(1) 讚！ | Finn123

A month and a half, accept, awesome

(0) 讚！ | yongdu

After submitting the revised manuscript, I received an acceptance email 25 days later. The speed was average, but it wasn't too slow. Although the impact factor of this journal is not high, it is a well-established journal that our supervisor really likes. I am very satisfied to have my first long article published in this journal during my doctoral stage, even though the revision process was tough, the end result was not disappointing

(0) 讚！ | 小涛

Received revision notice after more than 2 months of submission, with a revision period of two months. Two reviewers jointly provided over fifty comments. The comments were very professional and reasonable, indicating that the reviewers for this journal are very professional and responsible. The questions raised were rigorous and detailed. The response letter consisted of over ten thousand words, exceeding the word count of the manuscript

(2) 讚！ | 小涛

Already cast, praying for good luck.

(0) 讚！ | yongdu

Get feedback on the manuscript in a month. Make improvements based on the revisions. Finally accepted, very grateful to the reviewers and editors. Hope the journal will continue to improve!

(0) 讚！ | 简介

Hahaha, I am a second-year research sister? You are quite skilled at this, it's really disgusting. Are you truly an academic Daji?

(0) 讚！ | WFZ1

I have only submitted an article on the phase transition of pearlite before, and I can only say that the key reader was too professional. They asked very insightful questions, and it was very meticulous. At that time, it was in Zone 3. It was because of the issue of zoning that I did not submit again. It left a deep impression on me, but it's not because the reviewers asked too many questions. To be honest, every article will have questions raised. It is the reviewers' professionalism and focus on the core points that matter. It's a pity that I don't know why the zoning was so low.

(0) 讚！ | MMT A

The content of the article is about the transformation of austenitic stainless steel. It is written in a communicative manner and the speed is relatively fast. The reviewers and editors are also very rigorous. Friendly reminder, after submitting, each author needs to confirm before it can be reviewed.

(8) 讚！ | 学术小垃圾呀

2021.6.13 Submitted
2021.6.20 Under review
2021.10.20 Revised (with more than 20 comments from two reviewers)
2021.10.29 Revised
2021.11.8 Under review
2022.1.27 Tentatively accepted (requires polishing)

(3) 讚！ | corsci

I am a 2nd-year graduate student. I don't understand the knowledge about reverse austenite and would like to ask for help. If you see this, please reply.

(6) 讚！ | daizhiyong

Submission, 2020-04-19; Under review, 2020-05-01; Waiting for revision, 2020-06-04; Submission, 2020-08-18; Under review, 2020-08-19; Waiting for revision, 2020-09-08; Submission, 2020-09-16; Under consideration, 2020-09-16; Manuscript accepted, 2020-09-25.

(1) 讚！ | 奥氏体不锈钢

The article was about iron-based martensite reverse austenitization, and was submitted to MMTA as Communications. Review comments were returned within one month. The two reviewers should be seniors in the field of solid phase, and asked a total of almost 20 questions, and each of them was very specific. After supplementing the experiment and revising the manuscript, the article was significantly improved and became profound. It was similar to the post below. The article was with less than 4,000 words, but with comment reviews of more than 3,000 words. Such a rigorous journal worth the trustworthy of the metal materials industry. And I really don't understand why the impact factor has always been not optimistic.

(14) 讚！ | lord_ferrum

Reviewers and key readers comments were very good but mostly minor revisions. The revised manuscript should have been OKed by the Key reader since the revisions are minor. But it has to go through the process again and that took some more time. After the second revision, the key readers send it back to use for very minor revision which could have been done during the proofs. This took again some more time. This unnecessary process could have been eliminated to fasten the process.

(0) 讚！ | K.Sadananda

Research direction: Powder metallurgy preparation and high temperature mechanical properties of metal matrix composites. A long manuscript of close to 10,000 words was submitted to Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A, and the two reviewer comments returned within one month, adding up to 30 comments. Every comment is very pertinent, and the reviewers treat our work with the original intention of improving the quality of the manuscript. The length of the response letter is up to about 4,000 words, and it got accepted directly after the second preview for more than a month. As an established journal in the field of traditional physical metallurgy and structural materials, it is not easy to maintain a solid and rigorous quality. The invited reviewers are all directly related experts in the field, and they will never reply with a perfunctory sentence or two. This may be the reason why the review cycle has been so long. In short, majoring in structural material, being able to publish a long article in Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A can be regarded as a major goal of academic career.

(12) 讚！ | 沉默的炼金术师